The Rajasthan High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the State government, for failing to correct the name of an employee in the service records owing to their "impersonal and irresponsible" approach, and pushing her towards unnecessary litigation.

“This Court cannot remain a mute spectator to such harassment. The Courts are already overburdened with genuine lis. If the State and its instrumentalities compel their own employees to approach the Court for such petty, genuine and admitted corrections, which could have been done at the administrative level within a week, it amounts to gross abuse of process and creation of unnecessary litigation.”

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that when the employee had written her correct name in the application form, and incorrect name in the service records was due to the State's clerical error, it was State's bounden duty as a Model Employer to correct it. Inaction in this regard was not merely a negligence but culpable inaction.

For context, the petitioner was appointed as a Prabodhak. In her application form, she had mentioned her name correctly, however, in her service records, her middle name was somehow deleted. She had submitted a representation in July 2023, but no heed was paid to it. In 2025, the petition was filed before the Court, after which the name was corrected.

After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted the State's admission of the mistake that occurred on their part, and opined that,

“The petitioner has been compelled by the respondents to approach this court and has been unnecessarily made to suffer mental agony and humiliation for no fault of hers. Her service record, which is a sacrosanct document, was allowed to carry an incorrect name for years together. Such casual approach not only harasses the employee but also shakes his/her faith in the system.”

It was stated that the bureaucracy had developed an attitude inertia and did not want to take decisions, leaving the Court to resolve the matter, which ought to have been addressed by the administration itself, which amounted to gross abuse of the process.

In this light, the Court held that even though the petition had become infructuous considering that the State had corrected the error when the matter was pending, it was a fit case to impose cost to adequately compensate the petitioner and deter the State in future from such conduct.

Accordingly, while disposing of the petitioner, the Court imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the concerned department, to be deposited in the petitioner's account, with a liberty to recover it from the salary of the delinquent office.